A commercial tenant sought relief from forfeiture after failing to take possession and pay rent under a replacement lease following a court‑ordered surrender of its prior premises.
The landlord cross‑moved to vary an earlier order regarding payment of a lease inducement that had been withheld after the tenant vacated the premises leaving substantial damage and removing fixtures.
Applying s. 20(1) of the Commercial Tenancies Act and equitable principles governing relief from forfeiture, the court considered the tenant’s conduct, the gravity of the breaches, and whether the landlord could be compensated in money.
Although the tenant’s conduct contributed to the dispute, the court held the landlord had no right to withhold inducement funds as security for potential damages.
Relief from forfeiture was granted on conditions, including payment of utility arrears and application of funds held in trust toward rent and renovations at the replacement premises.